Assessment of the equivalence of a generic to a branded femoral stem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The aim of this study was to compare the design of the generic OptiStem XTR femoral stem with the established Exeter femoral stem. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We obtained five boxed, as manufactured, implants of both designs at random (ten in total). Two examiners were blinded to the implant design and independently measured the mass, volume, trunnion surface topography, trunnion roughness, trunnion cone angle, Caput-Collum-Diaphyseal (CCD) angle, femoral offset, stem length, neck length, and the width and roughness of the polished stem shaft using peer-reviewed methods. We then compared the stems using these parameters. RESULTS: We found that the OptiStems were lighter (p < 0.001), had a rougher trunnion surface (p < 0.001) with a greater spacing and depth of the machined threads (p < 0.001), had greater trunnion cone angles (p = 0.007), and a smaller radius at the top of the trunnion (p = 0.007). There was no difference in stem volume (p = 0.643), CCD angle (p = 0.788), offset (p = 0.993), neck length (p = 0.344), stem length (p = 0.808), shaft width (p = 0.058 to 0.720) or roughness of the polished surface (p = 0.536). CONCLUSION: 2017;99-B:310-16.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".